"Note that in all this, at least as reported here, no one actually says that the jihadists' use of the term is incorrect -- just 'incorrect in the sense that it is not the primary meaning of jihad.' They just say the word has other meanings as well."
-- from Robert's comment above

You are being too kind. They are not only saying that the word "jihad" has "other meanings" -- that can be granted -- but would have us, unwary Infidels, believe that the the primary meaning of Jihad is something other than that "struggle" or "Jihad" to spread Islam, to make sure that in the end all obstacles to the spread of Islam maintained by Infidels are torn down, so that everywhere "Islam dominates and is not to be dominated."

Possibly the inimitable Karen Armstrong is not so inimitable after all. For it is she who quotes that hadith, the one about Muhammad returning home from war, and saying that he is returning from the "Lesser Jihad" of war to the "Greater Jihad of domestic life and, presumably, working to stay on the path of Allah. But what Armstrong fails to tell readers is that this is Hadith is not in either of the most respected and authoritative collections of Hadith, and even in the lesser ones in which it appears, it is not assigned the highest rank of authenticity. So it has little value. I assume Armstrong, who knows so little, simply has no idea how the Hadith have been gathered, collated, their isnad-chains studied, they themselves assigned different levels of plausibility and then gathered into certain collections and not into others.

But what about Gianotti? Does he know this? Is he simply trying to placate his Muslim colleagues, and go along with the farce, for every Muslim knows perfectly well what the word "Jihad" is taken to mean by Muslims, in time and in space, from Spain to the East Indies, and over 1350 years. That a handful of people in the last two centuries tried, somehow, to endow it with another meaning (some of them because, during the years of perceived Muslim weakness, and Western strength, they saw no other way out to attain the kind of accommodation that they realized would be necessary, in such circumstances, for Muslims to make) is a detail or a footnote.

The primary, the commonly-accepted and for almost all of the history of Islam virtually its only meaning, was that which all of the Qur'anic scholars, the leaders of the various legal schools, the theologian Ghazali, the historian Ibn Khaldun, the caliphs and military men, gave it the meaning given to it today not only by Osama bin Laden, but by Al-Qaradawi, and the Sheikh al-Azhar, and all of the Saudi imams, and of course the most learned Shi'a theologians as well, including that well-trained man, Ayatollah Khomeini, and his many admirers.

One has only to spend even a half-hour looking through Andrew Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad" to find many dozens of excerpts from virtually every major figure in the history of Qur'anic scholarship by Muslims, and another half-hour to discover the works by the learned Western scholars of Islam, with the fruits of their immense learning, based on many decades of study -- and there was not even room for all of them. But such names as Joseph Schacht and Arthur Jeffery and Samuel Zwemer and St. Clair Tisdall and Emile Fagnan and K. S. Lal and David Margoliouth and Henri Lammens and Sir William Muir and so many others -- well, are you going to believe me, says the likes of Timothy Gianotti, or what your lying eyes tell you when you read C. Snouck Hurgronje, or Joseph Schacht?

I think, in this as in so many other cases, you had better believe your "lying eyes."

Posted by: Hugh at March 21, 2007 12:48 PM

and in the question of semantics to the professor what difference does it make what a word meant 100 years ago?

An ambulance originally was a covered wagon if you read the old west military journals and had nothing to do with sirens, people call 9 11 for help not a covered wagon today.

Jihad might mean feeding the poor, but it is carried out in murder today. What the past semantics meant has nothing to do with today except for a professor Katt Henry trying to look like they are adding something to debate that ends with a bomb.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 21, 2007 12:48 PM

Mo said the greater jihad is welll.....the jihad we all know.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 21, 2007 12:51 PM

I wonder why Mohammad specifically exempted the elderly and physically disabled from self-improvement and showing support for Islam.

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at March 21, 2007 1:24 PM

Bill Warner (Center for the Study of Political Islam) solves the conundrum with a COMPUTER!

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=5794&sec_id=5794

"All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction—if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true.

No dualistic system may be measured by one answer. This is the reason that the arguments about what constitutes the “real” Islam go on and on and are never resolved. A single right answer does not exist.

"Dualistic systems can only be measured by statistics. It is futile to argue one side of the dualism is true. As an analogy, quantum mechanics always gives a statistical answer to all questions.

"For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the references to jihad are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes—97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes—3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a case for either. But in truth, almost every argument about Islam can be answered by: “all of the above.” Both sides of the duality are right.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at March 21, 2007 1:32 PM

"Not primary" Phewwwww. That's a relief. I'd hate to see what it would be like if it was. Are we going to see a David Letterman type "Top 10" with this word or what?

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 21, 2007 1:37 PM

"All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction—if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true."

Excellent reference ynkedoodl2. This inseparable fact from the ideology of Islam becomes more and more apparent with each passing day and each passing jaw-dropping atrocity commited in it's name.

Methinks prof. Gianotti needs to generate about 1.3 billion plus pamphlets, distribute them worldwide to each and every Muslim, in an attempt to correct those who are misinterpreting the meaning of jihad.

I for one would rather have seen Mr. Atta and his boys formulate 19 harshly worded "letters to Congress" in the name of jihad as opposed to slamming commercial jets into civilian office buildings. It's a shame that they weren't informed of the correct meaning of jihad.

Posted by: awake at March 21, 2007 1:47 PM

An appalling example of semantic jiggery-pokery to conceal what is a self-evident truth.

A similar argument is used by certain media outlets when they refuse to describe terrorists as 'terrorists' or their actions as 'terrorism'.

The reasoning given is that 'terrorist' is a subjective, judgmental term. Unfortunately, the media's argument is frequently undermined because terrorists themselves describe their actions as terrorism.

I am not being facetious but consider the word 'murder'. Murder is not a very pleasant word because its primary definition is the premeditated taking of another human being's life. Someone who acts in this way is deemed to be a murderer and a danger to society.

Murder can also be used in other contexts: you can 'murder the English language', which is something I do regularly. The English language is not a human being, however, but this is still a common expression.

'Meat is murder', according to some of those who prefer a vegetarian diet. Meat is not murder (unless you kill a human and eat him), although there is a sizeable constituency of opinion that says it is.

A 'murder' is a collective noun for a group of crows. Even if you kill all the crows, you are not committing murder.

And so on.

All this is very well, but someone who goes out and slays another human being knowingly knows full well that he is a murderer. His peers know he is committing murder and society will treat his deed as a crime and punish him severely.

Murderers know what they are doing: they may murder out of vengeance, love, hate or jealousy and may well seek to put their actions in some sort of context to try and lessen the gravity of their crime.

A violent jihadist commits his acts knowingly and in a calculated fashion; and he is certain that what he is doing is 'jihad' and he will justify his actions in Islamic terms.

What he is doing may well be 'unislamic' but that is irrelevant because he and many of his peers regard his actions as those of a jihadist. By altering the meaning of the word, you are not changing the nature of the crime; or, even if 90 per cent of Muslims do not regard his deeds as jihad, there is a considerable body of opinion that insists that killing people is perfectly justifiable.

In essence, these people seem to be saying something like, "Murder isn't murder, it's actually a word for a group of crows or something you do to Hamlet or the English language'.

Daft. They should cut the crap.

Mixing metaphors, if he walks like a duck, talks like a duck, squawks like a duck and tells you he is a duck, then why should you disbelieve him?

Posted by: A Nonny Nonny at March 21, 2007 2:26 PM

The word "kampf" in German didn't begin as a term that made people cringe.

Posted by: Karl Pov at March 21, 2007 2:51 PM

Yes, jihad can mean any kind of struggle or effort. In one sense it is quite correct to say that 'war waged in support of Islam' is not a meaning of jihad. But 'campaign to improve agricultural yield' is not a meaning of jihad either, even if one can speak of agricultural jihad. However, when the word is not further qualified by some adjective or description of the circumstances in which this jihad is to be applied it tends to mean only one thing - war in support of Islam. And besides jihad is a duty of the muslim community as a whole. Providing some are engaged in the 'lesser' jihad, others are exempt. They may support the lesser jihad or engage in their own spiritual jihad. However, I have problems with the idea that Islam is 'spiritual.' The five (or first five) pillars might be spiritual, but over all Islam is very big on controlling others, but self-control is not one of it's strengths. Praying five times a day to a god who does not seem to trouble anyone much in their daily lives if they do not pray to him, is a small price to pay for the control freak who wants to use any degree of intimidation and physical violence to ensure that others behave as he thinks they should and to do so with a clear conscience.

Posted by: kevin at March 21, 2007 2:58 PM

"Feeding the poor is jihad," he said. "Writing your Congressperson is jihad."

_______

Jihad to what end???

A struggle, whether non-violent or violent, to impose Sharia law upon all non-Muslims?

That "jihad" still must be fought against - whether it is waged by violent or peaceful means. An attack on liberty and the constitution is still an attack, and still demands a defense.

Posted by: Monkeywho at March 21, 2007 6:05 PM

Don't pee on my shoes, then try to tell me it's raining.

Posted by: MP at March 21, 2007 7:07 PM

I get it; everything is jihad . Using an IBM instead of Dell is jihad, blue ink instead of black is jihad, drinking tea rather than coffee is jihad. What else ? Taking a bus is jihad while not taking a bus is also jihad. In essence any activity or ommission , mental or physical is jihad. Where can I get a job like Gianotti's, so that I can get paid to spew drivel like this ?

Posted by: ivan at March 21, 2007 8:36 PM

I've cruised a lot of the "islamic information for infidels" sites that Da'wah-minded muslims put up hoping to trawl for converts or to teach western muslims more about the faith, sites like islamqa.com . One of the best search terms for site-specific searches is "jihad" ("Jews", "kafir", and "abrogated" are also really good terms).

Something I've noticed is that a page "dispelling myths about Jihad" is almost mandatory for these folks. They generally start out by saying most definitively that Jihad does not mean war, it's all about internal struggling to improve onesself and seek justice and, oh, by extension, in REALLY RARE circumstances, and only if the Caliph (who doesn't exist these days) declares Jihad can it actually mean armed conflict -- but then only defensive.

Then they go on talking, on that page, or elsewhere about military Islamic military conflicts today and in history, and lapse into using one word to refer to it: "Jihad".

Oops, too hard to keep up the pretense. Freudian slip...

Here's a good google search term for anyone in doubt as to the meaning of Jihad:

"declare jihad", or "declared jihad".

Filter your search so that you go only to Islamic sites and read ONLY how MUSLIMS use this term. That's the point -- it doesn't matter what the etymology of the word reveals or what someone in the ivory tower wants the term to mean, or wants you to think it means. What matters is how the rank-and-file muslims use the word. And it matters what the jurists who are universally acknowledged as establishing the way this faith is worked out in real life use the term. It means what people who care about the term mean when they say it.

I guarantee that in this search you might see, maybe 1% of muslims talking of "declaring jihad" on poverty or against their own bad habits. Guess what the other 99% of "declaring jihad" is about? And guess what percentage of "declared jihad" is defensive?

Posted by: Archimedes2 at March 21, 2007 9:27 PM

Arabic Prof. Mohammed Sawaie said there is blah blah blaaah...

Lessee, the pontificating professor is named after the "holy prophet," a man who by all Islamic accounts was a racist, thief, slave taker, pedophile, rapist, murderer, terrorist, and, yes, mass murderer. Nobody argues with any of this list.

That said, who is Mohammed Sawaie to tell us anything, except perhaps how sorry he is and how much he promises to keep his pompous mouth shut until he can change his name to something civilized.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 21, 2007 10:34 PM

For arguments sake let us assume that the word jihad in Arabic did not begin as a term that made people cringe. However, the way the terrorists use the word today, it does make people cringe. One would then conclude that these terrorists are misusing the word. So what Prof. Timothy Gianotti and others should do is to go and talk to the terrorists and tell them how terribly wrong they are. Given the apparent convincing capability of Prof. Timothy Gianotti and others, I am sure that they will be able to turn these terrorists around, and bring them to the path of peace. The whole world will be eternally grateful to Prof. Timothy Gianotti and others for the valiant efforts that they will be making.

Ashok Chowgule
Goa, India

Posted by: AshokChowgule at March 22, 2007 2:23 AM

Whether or not there are multiple meanings for the word "jihad" and which of those meanings is most significant in the view of people who aren't interested in warfare is irrelevant.

Indeed, whether or not the meanings ascribed to the word are all strictly speaking correct is also irrelevant.

Nobody but the mohammedan equivalent of a Thomist theologian (how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?) cares whether "jihad" also means polishing your shoes before 11 AM on Thursdays.

Only two things are relevant to the general welfare of mankind:

1) That there are millions of people out there who are convinced that whatever else "jihad" might mean, it surely means kill the foreigners.

2) The people who are convinced of that fluently cite chapter and verse of their various allegedly holy books to promote their argument and browbeat, if not actually convince the skeptical.

That's it! Nothing else matters in this regard.

These are the only two facts that are directly relevant to the general welfare of mankind -- which is in no way threatened or much influenced by the question of whether charity constitutes a kind of "jihad".

So if someone is focusing on all those other meanings, one has to assume that their primary concern is not the general welfare and safety of humanity -- but lies elsewhere.

What those other concerns might be is an interesting question and must be identified. But it is secondary. The safety of humanity is clearly not their main concern, or else they would be focussed on those aspects of "jihad" most directly relevant to that.

Personally I suspect that many people who promote these distractions are secretly enamoured of the goals and methods of the jihaddis, and simply want to help in their weenie passive aggressive way.

I also suspect that many of them believe that they are opposed to the jihaddis because they don't endorse or believe in physical violence. But I've got bad news on this front -- an aversion to physical violence is not proof of a good and benevolent character.

Many people who shy away from physical violence as such, are the worst most vicious kind of passive aggressive weenies. The kind of person who got beat up by bigger more virile boys in the school yard and is going to spend the rest of his life making the world pay for his sufferings.

Such people are reflexively destructive, and enjoy confusing others for the sheer joy of it. And in this connection confusing people is a really toxic activity.

And finally, I suspect that a lot are lacking enough self to have a personal identity in any really robust sense. They identify with the crowd and their crowd is mohammedan. So their arguments are a fairly lame form of self agrandizement. The koran (meaning me) is too nice to promote jihad. Lame but likely.

And finally I bet plenty of them are simply too dumb to get the point.

Posted by: joeblough at March 22, 2007 8:27 PM